Land owners worry about Sanford Lake access due to Midland County-owned property

By John Kennett jkennett@mdn.net

Published
10:15 am EDT, Friday, June 14, 2013

Sanford Lake property owners who are concerned about future lake access have urged the Midland County Board of Commissioners to consider a resolution preserving the existing usage of Sanford Lake for members of the public.

“In working with some of the Sanford Lake Preservation Association, numerous times there have been concerns or questions asked about the property rights and basically are we going to not allow somebody to have a dock on those properties?” stated Mark Bone, R-2nd District. “The association felt that if we had a letter basically saying that we don’t want to mess with them, this would ease their minds. All this is doing is easing the minds of some property owners.”

The resolution, first discussed at Wednesday’s Administration and Operations Committee meeting, is basically a statement of intention by the county binding on the present board.

“The Resolution of Intent takes the position that the county has always, always asserted, which is that we don’t want, it is not our intention to take anybody’s property or to interfere with their right to use or their usage of property that abuts Sanford Lake,” said Midland County Attorney Bill Smith.

The situation began well before Sanford Lake existed.

“About 85 years ago, when Sanford Lake was nonexistent, but the Tittabawassee River was, there were regular metes and bounds descriptions of property that were picked up by Wolverine Power Company,” said Smith. “It didn’t follow any particular contour, but the river was involved in it. On both sides of the river were properties purchased by Wolverine Power. Sometimes they went up to the river and sometimes they didn’t. Then they built the dam and flowage waters were created. The expanse, the perimeter of Sanford Lake, expanded and it became Sanford Lake.”

But, 2,700 acres of bottom lands went into foreclosure due to lack of payment of back taxes by Wolverine, resulting in the purchase of the 27 parcels by the county. Unfortunately, the contour of the lake and the description lines of the property don’t match.

“The county is cognizant that the legal description to define the property taken by the county do not necessarily purport to the contours of Sanford Lake, which they don’t,” said Smith. “And that the private ownership of the property that sometimes borders Sanford Lake may sometimes cross the legal description of the property owned by the county and in other cases may go to the shoreline, or extend beyond the shoreline under the water.”

Owners of lake front property have been hearing rumors that the county could possibly deny them water access.

“If you are the owner of that property, you might be concerned that you won’t have access to the water, or it looks like I’ve built structures that may be on somebody else’s property. What would happen if I was disallowed the ability to go from my house to the water?” asked Smith. “We are trying to give some comfort to the people along the shore to the extent that they had been told that the county is going to come in and kick them off their land or put up a fence. That isn’t going to happen.”

Jim Leigeb, R-3rd District, raised a concern over what would happen if a developer came in, purchased multiple pieces of property and wanted to develop a marina.

“As it is currently stated, we are encouraging growth and trying to protect people who have invested along Sanford Lake,” said Smith. “There are a number of structures along the lake that are in need of replacing. If they are improving property, why would we not support that? It would be increased property value, increased commercial activity, residential activity and public activity. It is not our intention to stop development along Sanford Lake. It is the county’s intention to support Sanford Lake in its present configuration and its type of usage which is commercial, public, park and residential use.”

Should disputes over property descriptions arise in the future, the costs would be the responsibility of the party making the request.

“Any cost in responding to the questions raised regarding legal interests of the property, near or abutting Sanford Lake, will be borne solely by the requester,” said Smith. “In other words, the county is not allowed to spend any money. If somebody raises an issue, it is going to be their fiscal responsibility.”

After an hour of discussion, the proposal was held over for review by commissioners until the next committee meeting on June 26.